Robert Franklin: What does winter wheat have to do with health care?

  • Article by: ROBERT FRANKLIN
  • Updated: April 8, 2010 - 7:02 PM

A Supreme Court case involving a farmer who grew more than his allotment could be a factor in the lawsuits over reform.

  • 40
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
KepmeisterApr. 8, 10 7:51 PM

And to exercise vigorously every day. And to eat only 2,000 calories per day. And to watch only tv programs praising obama And to go to prison if they violate any of the above. Ahhh, America. Thank you obama for making us more like the Soviet Union. A true workers paradise.

16
20
ronniereaganApr. 8, 1010:35 PM

If you can use the INTER-state commerce clause to regulate INTRA-state health insurance to mandate people purchase something they might not want- there really is no limit to this clause or federal power. So as Kepmeister says above- if we are mandated to purchase it, I want to mandate people to exercise. We could fine them for not following doctor's orders. We could control food choices. See where we are going here. If Obama wants to go there- he better go all the way.

15
15
granma4peaceApr. 8, 1011:16 PM

If you choose not to buy health insurance, you'll pay more taxes. Simple as that. Pay more taxes or buy health insurance. One or the other. No mandate to "buy" anything.

Exactly as you must pay social security and medicare taxes but there is no mandate to collect on either one of those programs when you retire. No one will force you to sign up for benefits if you choose not to.

19
18
woadhylApr. 9, 10 3:50 AM

that's like saying that no one is mandated not to speed. If you're caught doing it, its just a fine you have to pay, but no one says you can't. Your logic is absurd. If you're fined for not doing it, then you're mandated. And try not paying the "penalty" and see what happens.

18
11
comment229Apr. 9, 10 6:36 AM

I have talked to several people in my community who were vehemently against any health insurance reform. Since the bill is now law, they have taken the time to explore "health insurance" costs and how it will affect them. Funny, but I do not and did not take sides on any of this, but one comment keeps coming back time and again from almost all of them. They now wish there was a public option for one reason only. They see the dead end that the insurance companies are offering. The insurance they could afford, was of little or no use. It featured a relatively high premium for a deductible that was outrageous. If you have a group plan through your employment, you probably will never see or experience this. Good for you. What it means to the people who are affected by this catastrophic insurance, is that they hesitate now to go to any doctor for any reason. Elective procedures such as colonoscopies are considered and then dismissed because of costs. What has this got to do with wheat? Simple, the government got into rules and regulations which have protected insurance companies from doing business across state lines, thus eliminating competition. Then I am constantly told how our state only allows nonprofit insurance companies, and yet I read about the outrageous salaries that the heads of these insurance companies make each year. Now, I know why they are nonprofit. The only thing that would have controlled them, was the public option. It is long gone now, so get out your checkbook to pay for that catastrophic plan, that you will never use.

11
9
fishheadApr. 9, 10 6:42 AM

Where were those 13 Republican AGs when the Supreme Court handed our elections to corporations (including foreign corporations)?

15
8
davehougApr. 9, 10 7:21 AM

The government took him to court to collect a 49-cent-per-bushel penalty, even though Filburn used his excess wheat only to feed his chickens and cows, to bake his family's bread and for seed.

THIS is "commerce among the several states"????? If it is a national good, then why are we paying for it with a regressive poll-tax??

6
7
a6699fApr. 9, 10 8:15 AM

is the assumption that THIS Supreme Court is bound by legal precedent. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission indicates that the conservative majority prefers to ignore case law and base their decisions on their political leanings.

10
6
RedGuyInBlueStateApr. 9, 10 8:38 AM

First of all, that decision was correct. How can something be free speech 60 days from an election, but not 1-59 days before an election. It's either free speech or it's not. Plus, the ruling applies to corporations AND unions. Funny you didn't mention that. Funny no lefty ever mentions that.

7
7
RedGuyInBlueStateApr. 9, 10 8:42 AM

"If you choose not to buy health insurance, you'll pay more taxes." So you're point is that Obama isn't mandating people buy insurance, just violating probably the most important and most repeated campaign promise that he won't raise taxes one dime on someone making under $250k per year?

9
7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question